changin' ur genes

[globali]

No it is not. It is a new field and little is as yet known, but shows enormous promise. Check the links I provided.

Photosynthesis is a quantum phenomenon. Are you suggesting that photosynthesis plays only a small part in biology?

You are just misinterpreting the real macroscopic impact of these phenomena. No one said that quantum phenomena don't happen. Their macroscopic impact though is limited. If you flip a coin once you will get either head or tails. If you flip it 10 thousand times, you will get a predictable result (tails almost 50% of cases)

 

[Write4U]

Why does there need to be an "analogy" at all?
Why not look at the facts as they are?
You're seeing three pies, and three angles, and insisting there has to be a triangle.
There doesn't have to be a triangle.

I see eight triangles and three pac-mans, set in a square.....

 

[DaveC426913]

So, if I say I am talking about faux diamonds I am talking natural diamonds?

You're talking about diamonds. Which has nothing to do with your thesis (or so you say).

W: "So, you can see that these faux diamonds have a clarity that..."
D: "Wait: you're saying those are diamonds"?
W: "No, they're faux diamonds."
D: "Is this lesson about diamonds"?
W: "No."
D: "Well, what is it about then?"
W: "Well, things that are diamond-like, but not diamonds, I guess."
D: "Like what things? What is this lesson actually about?"
W: "Er."
D: "Would Cubic Zirconia be a contender?"
W: "Well, sure but..."
D: "Is that Cubic Zirconia?"
W: "Well yes, but I really want to draw your attention to the fact that this is about..."
D: "Diamonds?"
W: "You're complaining about me not dotting my i's."
D: "Why do you keep talking about diamonds if this lesson isn't about diamonds?"

 

[DaveC426913]

I see eight triangles and three pac-mans......

Yup. That's called paredolia.

You are interpreting things that aren't actually there, and drawing false conclusions of the real world, based on your need to find pattern. Sometimes there is no pattern.

 

[Write4U]

Yup. That's called paredolia.

You are interpreting things that aren't actually there, and drawing false conclusions of the real world, based on your need to find pattern. Sometimes there is no pattern.

Except for chaos there is always a pattern. That is the point Tegmark makes in his hypothesis of a mathematical universe.

p.s. and according to chaos theory, chaos itself contains hidden patterns

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. "Chaos" is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Kinda like what I have been talking about, no?

 

[Write4U]

You're talking about diamonds. Which has nothing to do with your thesis (or so you say).

W: "So, you can see that these faux diamonds have a clarity that..."
D: "Wait: you're saying those are diamonds"?
W: "No, they're faux diamonds."
D: "Is this lesson about diamonds"?
W: "No."
D: "Well, what is it about then?"
W: "Well, things that are diamond-like, but not diamonds, I guess."
D: "Like what things? What is this lesson actually about?"
W: "Er."
D: "Would Cubic Zirconia be a contender?"
W: "Well, sure but..."
D: "Is that Cubic Zirconia?"
W: "Well yes, but I really want to draw your attention to the fact that this is about..."
D: "Diamonds?"
W: "You're complaining about me not dotting my i's."
D: "Why do you keep talking about diamonds if this lesson isn't about diamonds?"

You do realize this entire exercise is of your construction. Yet you assign authorship to me. That's duplicitous.

 

[DaveC426913]

You do realize this entire exercise is of your construction. Yet you assign authorship to me. That's duplicitous.

No.

You drew the connection between intelligence and diamonds. You brought the analogy to the table.


You posted it then you removed it - but not before I quoted you, here:

Is a faux-diamond a diamond?

What exactly is a faux diamond? Cubic Zirconia? OK. So your thesis is based on Cubic Zirconia - explicitly not diamond, right?

Admit that you posted it and then deleted it.

 

[globali]

Except for chaos there is always a pattern. That is the point Tegmark makes in his hypothesis of a mathematical universe.

p.s. and according to chaos theory, chaos itself contains hidden patterns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

The more complex and chaotic a system is, the more difficult it is to make accurate predictions.

The more complex and chaotic a system is, the more likely for paredolia to occur. The fact that flower leaves look like fractals doesn't mean that leaves are fractals.

 

[Write4U]

The more complex and chaotic a system is, the more difficult it is to make accurate predictions.

The more complex and chaotic a system is, the more likely for paredolia to occur. The fact that flower leaves look like fractals doesn't mean that leaves are fractals.

It means that fractals are patterns and self-similar patterns are fractals. Cell division is a fractal function.

In mathematics, a fractal is a subset of a Euclidean space for which the Hausdorff dimension strictly exceeds the topological dimension.

Fractals tend to appear nearly the same at different levels, as is illustrated here in the successively small magnifications of the Mandelbrot set;

Because of this, fractals are encountered ubiquitously in nature. Fractals exhibit similar patterns at increasingly small scales called self similarity,[5] also known as expanding symmetry or unfolding symmetry; If this replication is exactly the same at every scale, as in the Menger sponge,[6] it is called affine self-similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

Are you beginning to see the reason why I look for "common denominators" in universal phenomena?

 

[Write4U]

No.

You drew the connection between intelligence and diamonds. You brought the analogy to the table.

You posted it then you removed it - but not before I quoted you, here:

Yes I did and I'll tell you why I decided to delete it.

Admit that you posted it and then deleted it.

I deleted it, because I fully expected you to say that a faux diamond is an example of ID and that therefore I was again advocating for intelligent design. Can't win for losing.

Of course my original attempt was to draw a distinction between a naturally emergent crystal form and an artificially created crystal form.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes I did and I'll tell you why I decided to delete it.
I deleted it, because I fully expected you to say that a faux diamond is an example of ID and that therefore I was again advocating for intelligent design. Can't win for losing.

Which is fine, but it puts the lie to this:

You do realize this entire exercise is of your construction. Yet you assign authorship to me. That's duplicitous.

This displeases me, because it reads rather dishonestly - as if you're pretending I made it up.

Of course my original attempt was to draw a distinction between a naturally emergentcrystal form and an artificially created crystalform.

Heh. I did not read nearly that much into it.
I did not think beyond an example of a qualifying word: faux/quasi/pseudo.

I thought you were simply saying any qualifier added to a word changes the word. So a faux X is not an X.
(To which I replied that you were missing the point.)

 

[Write4U]

This displeases me, because it reads rather dishonestly - as if you're pretending I made it up.

Well, OK. My bad. But you can see why I tried to delete it before it was placed as an example of my willful adherence to the concept of ID.

This is what I have been trying to say, that these semantic arguments ALWAYS end up in a hopeless stalemate, stifling the free flow of information and completely drifting away from the original focus.

I did not do this to mislead. I was just tired of going back over and over again to see who said what, when, and in what context.

I just got tired of climbing hills to make a simple point.

 

[Write4U]

I did not think beyond an example of a qualifying word: faux/quasi/pseudo.

Except quasi does not belong in that group. That is why I asked that only the term "quasi" be used as it describes accurately what I was intending to convey.

 

[globali]

Imagine hundred of birds flying in a flock. While they are flying, you start seeing them making crazy shapes and you are amazed. What do you think. That something ordered is created in these shapes, real substance, or it is just your paredolia?

It means that fractals are patterns and self-similar patterns are fractals. Cell division is a fractal function.

What? Cell division is a fractal function?lol. Why? Because they are repeatable phenomena? So the planets orbiting the sun are fractals? If you visit Jupiter's moons, you will see similar things in their surface now, compared to 10 or 50 or 100 years ago. Chemical reactions are happening all the time, yet you see always the same thing. Does this mean that chemistry in the surface of these planets are fractals?

Periodicity happens all the time and results from the fact that similar substances under the same laws of nature will undergo similar events all the time. And similar events under similar laws of nature will pose similar results. Periodicity happens all the time. It is not a property of chaos. In fact, the more complex a system is, the more likely that it wont be repeatable. Although within the complex systems you might see some patterns, this is more likely to be paredolia than real periodicity, as exact predictive mathematical measurements will become increasingly more challenging and elusive. Now some complex mathematical systems might be periodic, but this is not a result of the complexity per se.

The mathematics to explain a system must be exact. They should not be valid "approximately". Some simple phenomena can be nicely explained mathematically, like for example E=mc^2. The more complex the system, like for example meteorology, the more mathematics seem to do a less good gob. And then you have biology which is orders of magnitude more complex than meteorology, and we are constantly discovering new layers of complexity, that we didn't know.
Fractals are mathematical constructions. To say that cell division is a fractal is absurd, because it means that every interaction is modeled by a mathematical symbol and then the calculations lead to a fractal-like function. For example, during translation, the DNA molecule takes a certain spatial conformation, that resemble a "S". Then according to the genes that are on the edge of that S, and some distant regulatory parts that attach to that region due to the now spatial proximity they come because of the twisted DNA molecule, determines which protein will be encoded. How can you model that in mathematical terms? Or how can you model the effects of the dynamic tension that external forces bring to the cytoskeleton. And i can go on and on for hours, giving examples on why it is currently so difficult to mathematically model biological functions, and claim that cell division is a fractal. Maybe in the future.

You seem to mix up fringe ideas, like some pure mathematical or physical models like quantum mechanics or chaos theory can be expanded into every aspect of reality, without palatable evidence that this is the case. This means that you are gullible to hyped claims....and this leads to an explosive mixture of ideas

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, OK. My bad. But you can see why I tried to delete it before it was placed as an example of my willful adherence to the concept of ID.

I see that, yes.

BTW, I don't think you're willfully adhering to ID. i.e. I don't think you think of yourself as an ID proponent.
I simply think you don't see how close your idea is to that of ID. The difference is too subtle to see for anybody but you.

 

[Write4U]

Imagine hundred of birds flying in a flock. While they are flying, you start seeing them making crazy shapes and you are amazed. What do you think. That something ordered is created in these shapes, real substance, or it is just your paredolia?

Aerodynamics.

What? Cell division is a fractal function?lol. Why? Because they are repeatable phenomena? So the planets orbiting the sun are fractals? If you visit Jupiter's moons, you will see similar things in their surface now, compared to 10 or 50 or 100 years ago. Chemical reactions are happening all the time, yet you see always the same thing. Does this mean that chemistry in the surface of these planets are fractals?

False analogy. Fractals are not reactions, fractals are patterns.

Periodicity happens all the time and results from the fact that similar substances under the same laws of nature will undergo similar events all the time. And similar events under similar laws of nature will pose similar results.

Right, that confirms the mathematical nature of natural pattern formation.

Periodicity happens all the time. It is not a property of chaos.

I did not claim that.

In fact, the more complex a system is, the more likely that it wont be repeatable. Although within the complex systems you might see some patterns, this is more likely to be paredolia than real periodicity, as exact predictive mathematical measurements will become increasingly more challenging and elusive. Now some complex mathematical systems might be periodic, but this is not a result of the complexity per se.

I never claimed that patterns are a result of complexity. You go argue with Chaos theorists.

The mathematics to explain a system must be exact. They should not be valid "approximately". Some simple phenomena can be nicely explained mathematically, like for example E=mc^2. The more complex the system, like for example meteorology, the more mathematics seem to do a less good gob. And then you have biology which is orders of magnitude more complex than meteorology, and we are constantly discovering new layers of complexity, that we didn't know.

Right, but none of it negates the fundamental law that E = Mc^2.

Fractals are mathematical constructions. To say that cell division is a fractal is absurd, because it means that every interaction is modeled by a mathematical symbol and then the calculations lead to a fractal-like function. For example, during translation, the DNA molecule takes a certain spatial conformation, that resemble a "S". Then according to the genes that are on the edge of that S, and some distant regulatory parts that attach to that region due to the now spatial proximity they come because of the twisted DNA molecule, determines which protein will be encoded. How can you model that in mathematical terms? Or how can you model the effects of the dynamic tension that external forces bring to the cytoskeleton. And i can go on and on for hours, giving examples on why it is currently so difficult to mathematically model biological functions, and claim that cell division is a fractal. Maybe in the future.

And here we arrive at David Bohm. Bohm's main objection to the standard model was that science picks apart every aspect of the universe, until things are so far removed from each other that one can no longer find any common denominators and we end up with paradoxes like GR and QM.

Bohm wrote a whole book on that very problem; "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"

FRAGMENTATION AND WHOLENESS

The title of this chapter is ‘Fragmentation and wholeness’. It is especially important to consider this question today, for fragmentation is now very widespread, not only throughout society, but also in each individual; and this is leading to a kind of general confusion of the mind, which creates an endless series of problems and interferes with our clarity of perception so seriously as to prevent us from being able to solve most of them.

http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf

You seem to mix up fringe ideas, like some pure mathematical or physical models like quantum mechanics or chaos theory can be expanded into every aspect of reality, without palatable evidence that this is the case. This means that you are gullible to hyped claims....and this leads to an explosive mixture of ideas

Interestingly, these ideas are not mine, but are formally presented by recognized scientists, physicists, mathematicians, in colleges such as Carnegie Institute for the Sciences, the Royal Academy of Sciences, Harvard, Yale, etc, etc.

And you declare these institutions are unable to tell tell the difference between good theoretical science and crack pottery? Our scientific world must be in a dismal state of confusion then.
=========================
p.s. Bohm was somewhat of a mystic and I am not in a position to judge that part f his mind-set. But I do know that Einstein was a good friend and greatly respected Bohm's scientific insights.

David Joseph Bohm ;
December 20, 1917 – October 27, 1992) was an American scientist who has been described as one of the most significant theoretical physicists of the 20th century[2] and who contributed unorthodox ideas to quantum theory, neuropsychology and the philosophy of mind.

Bohm advanced the view that quantum physics meant that the old Cartesian model of reality – that there are two kinds of substance, the mental and the physical, that somehow interact – was too limited.

To complement it, he developed a mathematical and physical theory of "implicate" and "explicate" order.[3] He also believed that the brain, at the cellular level, works according to the mathematics of some quantum effects, and postulated that thought is distributed and non-localised just as quantum entities are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm

 

[Write4U]

I see that, yes.

BTW, I don't think you're willfully adhering to ID. i.e. I don't think you think of yourself as an ID proponent.
I simply think you don't see how close your idea is to that of ID. The difference is too subtle to see for anybody but you.

Correct!
I see the difference only in the distiction between a fundamental ability of universal potentials to be able to spotaneously emerge (become explicated) from chaos, and the religious perspective that it requires a motivated intelligent entity, an external agent who "designed it all" or else nothing would exist.

The only difference lies in a universe which functions in a natural "quasi-intelligent mathematical manner" and a "motivated intentional designer" (the hand of God), a concept which I reject utterly.

And IMO, that makes ALL the difference.........

 

[pluto2]

You think there is some sort of hard line between desirable people and undesirable people. There isn't. It's a smooth curve.

Yes there is a hard line in my opinion.

Most girls are not attracted to very ugly men and if you are superugly like me then you can obviously forget about the girls because I think I stand no chance with them whatsoever.

 

[Write4U]

I see that, yes.

BTW, I don't think you're willfully adhering to ID. i.e. I don't think you think of yourself as an ID proponent.
I simply think you don't see how close your idea is to that of ID. The difference is too subtle to see for anybody but you.

I feel that I left this unresolved and I want to offer a perfect example of what I mean with a universe which functions in an inherent quasi-intelligent manner rather than from an external motivated creator.

I have posted this elsewhere, but it offers such a beautiful example of natural mathematical potential inherent in even the smallest (earliest) organisms that it certainly applies to this conversation on genetics and illustrates how physical chemical properties of single celled bacteria allows for "quorum sensing" an inherent bacterial mathematical "counting ability"!!! And the resulting quasi-intelligence which may well be the evolutionary proto-model of true intelligence .

If you have not yet seen this I urge you give this close attention, and if you have seen it, it bears repeated viewing.
It is truly revelatory.

 

[pluto2]

There are tons of things we don't know yet about life and the human body.

We still don't know why some people experience very severe pain even after a small injury while other people are apparently very resistant to pain, even after a big injury.

The experience of pain after injury and why it differs so much between people (like I said, I am convinced that some people feel almost no pain even after big injuries) is still a mystery but scientists HAVE to figure it out if we want to make life better for everyone.

Severe pain and avoidance of injuries can completely destroy someone's quality of life.

I mean if severe pain after injury is really beneficial for us evolutionarily speaking then why do some people really go into extreme measures to get rid of it?